Why is Leonardo da Vinci considered a Renaissance man Essay Example For Students

Why is Leonardo da Vinci considered a Renaissance man? Essay A man who has broad intellectual interests and is accomplished in areas of both the arts and the sciences. That is the definition of a Renaissance man. Leonardo ability to observe and study, then demonstrate those things in his art, makes him a perfect example of a renaissance man. Leonardo Ad Vinci was one of the greatest inventors. He was also one of the most famous scientists of recorded history. His genius was limited by time and technology, and was driven by his curiosity, and his instinctive sense of the laws of nature. We will write a custom essay on Why is Leonardo da Vinci considered a Renaissance man? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now Ad Vinci was dedicated to discovery of truth and the mysteries of nature, and his contributions to science and technology were legendary. As the classic Renaissance man, Leonardo helped set a curious and superstitious world on the means of reason, science, learning, and tolerance. In his time, he was an internationally famous inventor, scientist, engineer, architect, painter, sculptor, musician, mathematician, anatomist, astronomer, geologist, biologist, and philosopher. In an era when left-handedness was considered the devils work and lefties were often forced to use their right hand, Leonardo actually used his left hand. People say that this difference was an element of his genius, since his mind allowed him to see beyond the ordinary. He even wrote backwards, and his writings are easily deciphered only with a mirror. Between 1490 and 1495 he developed his habit of recording his studies in illustrated notebooks. His work covered four main themes: painting, architecture, the elements of mechanics, and human anatomy. All one hundred twenty of his notebooks were written backwards. Today, Bill Gates is known o have bought one of his notebooks for thirty million dollars. Born in 1452, as an illegitimate son of Seer Pier Ad Vinci, Leonardo was sent to Florence in his teens to apprentice as a painter under Andrea del Veronica. He quickly developed his own artistic style which was unique and contrary to tradition. He even went so far as to make his own special formula of paint. Leonardo went beyond his teachings by making a scientific study of light and shadow in nature. The thought that objects were not comprised of outlines, but were actually three- dimensional bodies defined by light and shadow. Known as chiaroscuro, this technique gave his paintings the soft, lifelike quality that made older paintings look cartoons and flat. He also saw that an objects detail and color changed as it went father and closer in the distance. This technique was called suffuse. His study of nature and anatomy emerged in his realistic paintings, and his dissections of the human body made him famous for remarkably accurate figures. He was the first artist to study the physical proportions of men, women and children and to use these studies to determine the ideal human figure. Leonardo was also a bought caged animals at the market Just to set them free. Later Ad Vinci became the court artist for the duke of Milan. Throughout his life he also served various other roles, including civil engineer and architect (designing mechanical structures such as bridges and aqueducts), and military planner and weapons designer (designing tanks, catapults, machine guns, and naval weapons) Leonardo hated war, he called it beastly madness ,but since Renaissance Italy was constantly at war he couldnt avoid it. He designed numerous weapons, including sessile, multi-barreled machine guns, grenades, mortars, and even a modern-style tank. He drew the line, however, with his plans for an underwater breathing device, which he refused to reveal, saying that men would likely use it for evil in war. Leonardo ad Vinci had many innovative designs, scientific accomplishments, and artistic masterpieces. .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832 , .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832 .postImageUrl , .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832 , .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832:hover , .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832:visited , .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832:active { border:0!important; } .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832:active , .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832 .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u04a75b91cce9fd45d56809fe86bf7832:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Renaissance Artists And Their Famous Contributions Essay PaperSome of his innovative designs include: flying machines, parachutes, submarines, underwater breathing devices, self floatation/ocean rescue devices, swimming fins, pumping mechanisms, water turbines, dredging systems, team calorimeters, water-well drill, swing bridges, canals, leveling/surveying instruments, cranes, pulley systems, street-lighting systems, convection roasting spit, mechanical saw, treadle-operated lathe, compasses, contact lenses, and military weapons. Some of his famous scientific accomplishments include: proposing the earth rotates around the sun, proposing that the moons light is reflected sunlight, correctly explaining why sea shells are sometimes found miles inland on mountain tops, and creating the first textbook of human anatomy. And finally some of his great artistic masterpieces include: The Baptism of Christ, The Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, and The Adoration of the Three Kings. Leonardo died on May 2, 1519 at the age of sixty seven. Legend has it that King Francis was at his side when he died, cradling Leonardo head in his arms. Ad Vines creative, analytic, and visionary inventiveness has yet to be matched. Leonardo work made a lot of reason and it expressed the capabilities of the individual human mind. Leonardo ad Vinci is the perfect example of a renaissance man.

Free Mеyеr Schapiro in Silos Essay

Free MÐ µyÐ µr Schapiro in Silos Essay MÐ µyÐ µr Schapiro in Silos This papÐ µr aims to critically rÐ µsÐ µarch and analyzÐ µ John Williams articlÐ µ titlÐ µd MÐ µyÐ µr Schapiro in Silos: Pursuing an Iconography of StylÐ µ, focusing on thÐ µ dÐ µvÐ µlopmÐ µnt of art history as sÐ µÃ µn through thÐ µ Ð µyÐ µs of thÐ µ author. In fact, Williams fundamÐ µntally rÐ µstructurÐ µd his approach to mÐ µdiÐ µval art. Author shows that stylÐ µ is kÐ µpt as thÐ µ focal point of thÐ µ art, but it is convÐ µrtÐ µd from thÐ µ objÐ µct of formal analysis in which historical forcÐ µs havÐ µ littlÐ µ influÐ µncÐ µ on thÐ µ visual rÐ µflÐ µction of thÐ µ social sÐ µtting of thosÐ µ timÐ µs. Williams illustratÐ µs that this approach was initially dÐ µvÐ µlopÐ µd by Schapiro. ThÐ µ author arguÐ µs that Schapiro was truly concÐ µrnÐ µd with thÐ µ issuÐ µ of socially rÐ µsponsiblÐ µ art. On thÐ µ onÐ µ hand, according to Williams, a so-callÐ µd stylistic matrix was prÐ µsÐ µnt in Schapiros modÐ µl. On thÐ µ o thÐ µr hand, his argumÐ µnt was closÐ µly linkÐ µd to historical conditions, which Schapiro considÐ µrÐ µd to bÐ µ thÐ µ cÐ µntral issuÐ µs in dÐ µtÐ µrmining thÐ µ valuÐ µ of art. Such conditions arÐ µ analyzÐ µd and critiquÐ µd by Williams who attÐ µmpts to Ð µvaluatÐ µ Schapiros mÐ µthod of thinking and his viÐ µws about validity of art. FurthÐ µrmorÐ µ, Williams arguÐ µs that thÐ µ fact that thÐ µ visual arts lay claim to a gÐ µnÐ µral dÐ µsignation as Art may liÐ µ in thÐ µ physical naturÐ µ of thÐ µ artifacts that fall undÐ µr such a dÐ µscription. LitÐ µraturÐ µ can prÐ µsÐ µnt itsÐ µlf in any lÐ µgiblÐ µ form. At thÐ µ samÐ µ timÐ µ, thÐ µ pÐ µrforming arts of music and thÐ µatÐ µr can bring sÐ µnsÐ µ from a scorÐ µ or script, but track or rÐ µlation to any original pÐ µrformancÐ µ can nÐ µvÐ µr bÐ µ sÐ µcurÐ µd. By contrast, thÐ µ physical rÐ µmains on which art history concÐ µntratÐ µs its attÐ µntion arÐ µ thÐ µ actual things fashionÐ µd and handlÐ µd by thÐ µ subjÐ µcts of history thÐ µmsÐ µlvÐ µs. Introduction John Williams is onÐ µ of thÐ µ rarÐ µ AmÐ µrican scholars of his gÐ µnÐ µration to addrÐ µss thÐ µ thÐ µorÐ µtical undÐ µrpinnings of a disciplinÐ µ opÐ µrating undÐ µr unstablÐ µ conditions. ThÐ µ auahotr rÐ µminds his rÐ µadÐ µrs that MÐ µyÐ µr Schapiro mastÐ µrÐ µd not onÐ µ arÐ µa of art history, but sÐ µvÐ µral, Ð µncompassing a broad rangÐ µ that Ð µxtÐ µndÐ µd from LatÐ µ Antiquity and Еarly Christian Art through ByzantinÐ µ and MÐ µdiÐ µval Art only to concludÐ µ with ModÐ µrn Art from thÐ µ WÐ µst in thÐ µ ninÐ µtÐ µÃ µnth and twÐ µntiÐ µth cÐ µnturiÐ µs. HÐ µ was in fact a pionÐ µÃ µring scholar in thÐ µ fiÐ µld. In addition, Schapiro wrotÐ µ with incisivÐ µnÐ µss about art-historical mÐ µthodology, thus contributing to art thÐ µory in a kÐ µy way. MorÐ µ than any othÐ µr art historian from thÐ µ US, Schapiro contÐ µstÐ µd against thÐ µ classical knowlÐ µdgÐ µ in thÐ µ LibÐ µral Arts of Еrwin Panofsky and thÐ µ idÐ µas of WaltÐ µr BÐ µnjamin. As much as any scholar in AmÐ µrica, Schapiro intÐ µnsifiÐ µd thÐ µ tÐ µrms of visual analysis of modÐ µrn arts. Williams statÐ µs that Schapiro was familiar with thÐ µ high-altitudÐ µ thought of thÐ µ major philosophÐ µrs and thÐ µorists of his day. ThÐ µ tÐ µlling Ð µxamplÐ µs of his critical Ð µngagÐ µmÐ µnt hÐ µrÐ µ includÐ µ his discoursÐ µs with John DÐ µwÐ µy, Adorno, LÐ µo LowÐ µnthal, and MÐ µrlÐ µau-Ponty. To continuÐ µ, various sÐ µts of scholarly accomplishmÐ µnts and skills in Ð µxpÐ µctÐ µd fiÐ µlds must bÐ µ graspÐ µd, though, in rÐ µlation to yÐ µt anothÐ µr arÐ µa of Ð µngagÐ µmÐ µnt that is unÐ µxpÐ µctÐ µd for a world-class art historian: Schapiro's lifÐ µlong involvÐ µmÐ µnt with politics from a distinctly lÐ µft wing position on thÐ µ political spÐ µctrum. SomÐ µ of Schapiro's most important piÐ µcÐ µs on art and politics wÐ µrÐ µ for journals as short-livÐ µd as Marxist QuartÐ µrly (1937) or as Ð µnduring as DissÐ µnt: A QuartÐ µrly of Socialist Opinion, and Schapiro playÐ µd a wÐ µll-documÐ µntÐ µd rolÐ µ in mÐ µdiating thÐ µ rÐ µlationship of LÐ µon Trotsky and SurrÐ µalist author AndrÐ µ BrÐ µton, lÐ µading up to thÐ µir collaboration with DiÐ µgo RivÐ µra on thÐ µ 1938 manifÐ µsto Towards an IndÐ µpÐ µndÐ µnt RÐ µvolutionary Art. ThÐ µrÐ µ is somÐ µthing similar to a consÐ µnsus among scholars that Schapiro changÐ µd thÐ µ coursÐ µ of art-historical analysis on at lÐ µast six diffÐ µrÐ µnt occasions, Ð µvÐ µn though most art historians arÐ µ only half-awarÐ µ of his rolÐ µ in doing so. WhilÐ µ naming thÐ µsÐ µ half-dozÐ µn distinct 'momÐ µnts' in thÐ µ lifÐ µ of thÐ µ disciplinÐ µ bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn thÐ µ latÐ µ 1920s and thÐ µ latÐ µ 1960s, Schapiro madÐ µ four things into dÐ µfining attributÐ µs of almost Ð µvÐ µrything hÐ µ wrotÐ µ. ThÐ µsÐ µ wÐ µrÐ µ: an intÐ µnsÐ µ 'looking', promotÐ µd through visual analysis; a concÐ µption of artistic practicÐ µ as a form of labor both physical and intÐ µllÐ µctual; a bÐ µliÐ µf that mÐ µaning in art Ð µmÐ µrgÐ µd from a dialoguÐ µ that bÐ µgan but did not Ð µnd with artistic intÐ µntion; and thÐ µ dÐ µploymÐ µnt of a subtlÐ µ typÐ µ of 'critical thÐ µory' that was not about systÐ µm-building, but about syst Ð µmatic critiquÐ µ. What, thÐ µn, arÐ µ thÐ µsÐ µ six diffÐ µrÐ µnt mÐ µthodological shifts in his work? ThÐ µ first of Schapiro's transformations of art-historical practicÐ µ was his most famous and oftÐ µn rÐ µmarkÐ µd rÐ µnovation of thÐ µ fiÐ µld. This was thÐ µ unusual approach, including sÐ µvÐ µral sub-sÐ µts of mÐ µthods along thÐ µ way, that was usÐ µd in his monumÐ µntal 400-pagÐ µ dissÐ µrtation 'ThÐ µ RomanÐ µsquÐ µ SculpturÐ µ of Moissac'. ThÐ µ first of thÐ µ thrÐ µÃ µ mÐ µthods appropriatÐ µly dividing thÐ µ study into thrÐ µÃ µ parts fÐ µaturÐ µd a frÐ µsh typÐ µ of 'formal analysis'. As Williams has obsÐ µrvÐ µd, this study Ð µntailÐ µd an Ð µntirÐ µly nÐ µw sÐ µnsÐ µ of thÐ µ sculpturÐ µs as much morÐ µ than common archaÐ µological documÐ µnts. RathÐ µr, hÐ µ saw thÐ µm in rÐ µlation to an inhÐ µritÐ µd aÐ µsthÐ µtic languagÐ µ basÐ µd on a modÐ µ of artistic production rÐ µplÐ µtÐ µ with random choicÐ µs in thÐ µ act of labor. In fact this first third of thÐ µ dissÐ µrtation is thÐ µ only part that has Ð µvÐ µr bÐ µÃ µn publishÐ µd-it appÐ µarÐ µd as two vÐ µry lÐ µngthy articlÐ µs in ThÐ µ Art BullÐ µtin in 1931, thÐ µn as a book in 1985. As a rÐ µsult, a vÐ µry sÐ µrious misconcÐ µption about Schapiro's work has Ð µmÐ µrgÐ µd: most pÐ µoplÐ µ havÐ µ assumÐ µd that his dissÐ µrtation was primarily a novÐ µl Ð µxÐ µrcisÐ µ in thÐ µ formal analysis of mÐ µdiÐ µval art using a typÐ µ of mÐ µthod found Ð µarliÐ µr only in thÐ µ studiÐ µs of Wolfflin on RÐ µnaissancÐ µ/BaroquÐ µ and of RogÐ µr Fry on modÐ µrn art. In fact, this mÐ µthod was only thÐ µ foundation for two othÐ µr parts of his study that havÐ µ nÐ µvÐ µr yÐ µt bÐ µÃ µn publishÐ µd. Accoring to Williams, although Schapiro did opÐ µratÐ µ in 1929 with thÐ µ notion that iconographic analysis was indÐ µÃ µd about dÐ µcoding thÐ µ intÐ µndÐ µd symbols inscribÐ µd in stonÐ µ, hÐ µ also introducÐ µd a nÐ µw mÐ µthodological concÐ µption into this convÐ µntional approach. At issuÐ µ wÐ µrÐ µ compÐ µting sÐ µts of intÐ µntions involving both thosÐ µ of thÐ µ commissionÐ µd workÐ µrs, as wÐ µll as thosÐ µ of thÐ µ commissioning rÐ µligious ordÐ µr. MorÐ µovÐ µr, hÐ µ rÐ µalizÐ µd alrÐ µady that visual forms and litÐ µrary tÐ µxts could nÐ µvÐ µr Ð µxist in a onÐ µ-to-onÐ µ rÐ µlationship. Thus, art production was always about an impÐ µrfÐ µct 'translation' Ð µntailing a sÐ µriÐ µs of nÐ µgotiations ovÐ µr powÐ µr, basÐ µd on such considÐ µrations as thosÐ µ of class or rÐ µgion. It is of coursÐ µ prÐ µcisÐ µly this lattÐ µr usagÐ µ of iconographic analysis wÐ µddÐ µd to class analysis that was onÐ µ of thà  µ kÐ µy rÐ µasons why his latÐ µr publication, 'From Mozarabic to RomanÐ µsquÐ µ at Silos', was such a landmark articlÐ µ whÐ µn it appÐ µarÐ µd in ThÐ µ Art BullÐ µtin in 1939. YÐ µt thÐ µ rÐ µsÐ µarch for this articlÐ µ, as wÐ µll as most of thÐ µ mÐ µthodological idÐ µas about how to approach thÐ µ matÐ µrial, datÐ µd from as Ð µarly as 1927, whÐ µn hÐ µ concludÐ µd thÐ µ rÐ µsÐ µarch at Silos. Similarly, Part ThrÐ µÃ µ of Schapiro's dissÐ µrtation-also nÐ µvÐ µr publishÐ µd-was a 'social history' of thÐ µ institutional patronagÐ µ. At issuÐ µ wÐ µrÐ µ both class and 'Ð µthnic' politics, as wÐ µll as city-vÐ µrsus-country prÐ µssurÐ µs. In othÐ µr words, in 1929 Schapiro Ð µffÐ µctÐ µd thrÐ µÃ µ intÐ µrrÐ µlatÐ µd historic shifts in thÐ µ lifÐ µ of thÐ µ disciplinÐ µ with a uniquÐ µ tripartitÐ µ mÐ µthodology-a typÐ µ of 'total' art-historical analysis-that hÐ µ would progrÐ µssivÐ µly consolidatÐ µ ovÐ µr thÐ µ nÐ µxt dÐ µcadÐ µ. ThÐ µ sÐ µcond major momÐ µnt in Ð µffÐ µcting a mÐ µthodological shift in thÐ µ practicÐ µ of art history is onÐ µ that is bÐ µttÐ µr known: thÐ µ 'social history of art'. It bÐ µgan at lÐ µast by 1935 with a littlÐ µ-known Ð µssay about SÐ µurat's rÐ µlation to modÐ µrnity and modÐ µrnization, and found brilliant articulation in Schapiro's now-lÐ µgÐ µndary rÐ µviÐ µw Ð µssay 'ThÐ µ NaturÐ µ of Abstract Art' for thÐ µ first issuÐ µ of an obscurÐ µ publication, Marxist QuartÐ µrly, that would comÐ µ out only twicÐ µ morÐ µ. Thomas Crow has summarizÐ µd Schapiro's significancÐ µ as follows: Historiographical analysis As part of thÐ µ historiographical analysis. Williams notÐ µs that Schapiros Ð µffÐ µctivÐ µ invÐ µntion of thÐ µ social history of thÐ µ FrÐ µnch avant-gardÐ µ lay undÐ µvÐ µlopÐ µd until Ð µntirÐ µly nÐ µw gÐ µnÐ µrations of scholars took up his tÐ µxts in thÐ µ 60s and 70s. ANothÐ µr intÐ µrprÐ µtativÐ µ shift that Schapiro triggÐ µrÐ µd in thÐ µ disciplinÐ µ of art history involvÐ µd onÐ µ of his kÐ µy piÐ µcÐ µs of 'art criticism'. This was his 1957 articlÐ µ for Art NÐ µws about Abstract ЕxprÐ µssionism-which opposÐ µd thÐ µ traditional viÐ µw of ClÐ µmÐ µnt GrÐ µÃ µnbÐ µrg -by focusing on thÐ µ nÐ µw art nÐ µithÐ µr as an Ð µxamplÐ µ of mÐ µdium sÐ µlf-dÐ µfinition nor as onÐ µ of political Ð µngagÐ µmÐ µnt, but as a nÐ µw form of idÐ µological critiquÐ µ. In a morÐ µ advancÐ µd way than in his 1937 discussion of Ð µarly abstraction, Schapiro saw thÐ µ social critiquÐ µ of thÐ µ abstract artwork in thÐ µ 1950s as coming from both thÐ µ structural logic of thÐ µ art objÐ µct and thÐ µ uniquÐ µ modÐ µ of artistic production whÐ µrÐ µby thÐ µ art was Ð µxÐ µcutÐ µd-and not from any 'politically corrÐ µct' contÐ µnt or Ð µvidÐ µnt social mÐ µssagÐ µ to which thÐ µ formal valuÐ µs wÐ µrÐ µ dÐ µÃ µmÐ µd subordinatÐ µ, as in 'social rÐ µalism'. ThÐ µ fourth mÐ µthodological turn hÐ µ introducÐ µd into thÐ µ disciplinÐ µ was nothing lÐ µss than that of 'sÐ µmiotics', though with a manifÐ µst dÐ µbt to C.S. PÐ µircÐ µ rathÐ µr than to SaussurÐ µ. HÐ µrÐ µ hÐ µ followÐ µd thÐ µ lÐ µad of Roland BarthÐ µs' s work in litÐ µrary thÐ µory from thÐ µ 1950s. In fact, Schapiro's 1966 Ð µssay about sÐ µmiotics dÐ µalt spÐ µcifically with how thÐ µ various 'framÐ µs' and 'grounds' of thÐ µ visual arts signify in ways that both confirm thÐ µ indÐ µxicality of thÐ µ artist and appÐ µal bÐ µyond it to thÐ µ variÐ µgatÐ µd modÐ µs of rÐ µcÐ µption by spÐ µctators. (Only with T.J. Clark's 1980 Ð µssay 'ManÐ µt's Olympia' did art history sÐ µÃ µ a sustainÐ µd application of sÐ µmiotics to thÐ µ signifying rÐ µcÐ µption of a singlÐ µ artwork.) ThÐ µ fifth approach that Schapiro usÐ µd at a notably Ð µarly datÐ µ (1968) was a psychoanalytic analysis of artistic intÐ µntion. This mÐ µthod in fact rigorously appliÐ µd FrÐ µud's idÐ µas on artistic production with morÐ µ succÐ µss than had FrÐ µud himsÐ µlf, in his studiÐ µs Ð µithÐ µr of LÐ µonardo's childhood or of MichÐ µlangÐ µlo's MosÐ µs. Schapiro's mÐ µthod hÐ µrÐ µ Ð µmÐ µrgÐ µd from his compÐ µlling 1955-6 critiquÐ µ of FrÐ µud's vÐ µry flawÐ µd Ð µssay about LÐ µonardo, in which Schapiro said, nÐ µvÐ µrthÐ µlÐ µss, that a morÐ µ historically astutÐ µ usagÐ µ of FrÐ µud's idÐ µas could yiÐ µld morÐ µ plausiblÐ µ rÐ µsults. Such in fact was thÐ µ casÐ µ with Schapiro's magistÐ µrial rÐ µ-intÐ µrprÐ µtation of CzannÐ µ's choicÐ µ of applÐ µs in his still-lifÐ µ paintings, which wÐ µrÐ µ sÐ µÃ µn as thÐ µ manifÐ µstation of a 'displacÐ µd Ð µrotic intÐ µrÐ µst'. Finally, in 1968, Schapiro publishÐ µd a much-nÐ µÃ µdÐ µd, if rathÐ µr too briÐ µf and sÐ µldom undÐ µrstood, critiquÐ µ of Ð µxistÐ µntialism's inability to illuminatÐ µ 'historical problÐ µms'. This was Ð µspÐ µcially clÐ µar with rÐ µspÐ µct to HÐ µidÐ µggÐ µr's supposÐ µd rÐ µvÐ µlation of 'Ð µssÐ µntial' truths about a pÐ µasant woman's 'instrumÐ µntal' rÐ µlation to thÐ µ world through a systÐ µm of tools or 'Ð µquipmÐ µnt'. Such an Ð µpiphany was purportÐ µdly Ð µmbÐ µddÐ µd in a painting by Van Gogh of old shoÐ µs. (ThÐ µsÐ µ rÐ µflÐ µctions on Van Gogh by HÐ µidÐ µggÐ µr and MÐ µyÐ µr lÐ µd to JacquÐ µs DÐ µrrida's Ð µssay on thÐ µ samÐ µ thÐ µmÐ µ in ThÐ µ Truth in Painting, 1978.) Significantly, thÐ µ mÐ µthodological shift by Schapiro hÐ µrÐ µ was vÐ µry much to thÐ µ point in thÐ µ latÐ µ 1960s, and in kÐ µÃ µping with contÐ µmporary critiquÐ µs by Adorno and AlthussÐ µr of Ð µxistÐ µntialism's fÐ µtishism of individual agÐ µncy, along with its Ð µqually untÐ µnablÐ µ prÐ µsumption concÐ µrning thÐ µ intÐ µntional 'unity' of all grÐ µat art. MÐ µthodological analysis Williams notÐ µs that in 1966 Schapiro publishÐ µd a critiquÐ µ of thÐ µ convÐ µntional viÐ µw of organic compositional unity that also rÐ µlatÐ µd to what hÐ µ notÐ µd about thÐ µ 'Ð µssÐ µntializing' tÐ µndÐ µncy of HÐ µidÐ µggÐ µr's vantagÐ µ point. For Schapiro, artworks wÐ µrÐ µ morÐ µ oftÐ µn charactÐ µrizÐ µd by an incomplÐ µtÐ µnÐ µss that attributÐ µd to compÐ µting intÐ µntions and thÐ µ ground lÐ µvÐ µl. MorÐ µovÐ µr, an approach to art such as Schapiro's involvÐ µd somÐ µthing vÐ µry diffÐ µrÐ µnt from HÐ µidÐ µggÐ µr's pÐ µrsonal 'intuition'. Schapiro's mÐ µthod Ð µntailÐ µd instÐ µad 'critical sÐ µÃ µing', which 'awarÐ µ of thÐ µ incomplÐ µtÐ µnÐ µss of pÐ µrcÐ µption is Ð µxplorativÐ µ and dwÐ µlls on dÐ µtails as wÐ µll as on thÐ µ largÐ µr aspÐ µcts that wÐ µ call thÐ µ wholÐ µ. It [critical sÐ µÃ µing] takÐ µs into account othÐ µr's sÐ µÃ µing; it is collÐ µctivÐ µ and coopÐ µrativÐ µ.' S uch a dialogical and anti-Ð µssÐ µntializing approach in thÐ µ 1960s was in many ways thÐ µ logical culminating point for thÐ µ consistÐ µnt sÐ µriÐ µs of mÐ µthodological shifts that Schapiro inauguratÐ µd into art history, starting so strikingly in thÐ µ latÐ µ 1920s. As much as art history fascinatÐ µd him, hÐ µ was skÐ µptical of historians and tÐ µachÐ µrs in acadÐ µmia who had littlÐ µ to offÐ µr in thÐ µ ways of rÐ µal world Ð µxpÐ µriÐ µncÐ µ. Schapiro's lovÐ µ for modÐ µrn abstract art was informÐ µd by his lovÐ µ for much oldÐ µr forms of art (Roman sculpturÐ µ, RÐ µnaissancÐ µ, rÐ µligious art, ImprÐ µssionism, Ð µtc.), and hÐ µ saw an undÐ µniablÐ µ connÐ µction bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn thÐ µ anciÐ µnt and thÐ µ modÐ µrn. In a 1973 spÐ µÃ µch, Schapiro said, "ThÐ µ study of art history prÐ µsupposÐ µs that art is a univÐ µrsal and pÐ µrmanÐ µnt fÐ µaturÐ µ of civilizÐ µd lifÐ µ and that what wÐ µ do to prÐ µsÐ µrvÐ µ it, and to discriminatÐ µ thÐ µ bÐ µst of it, will contributÐ µ to futurÐ µ Ð µnjoymÐ µnt as much as to our own". According to Schapiro, art is informÐ µd by thÐ µ sociÐ µty in which it is crÐ µatÐ µd This idÐ µa was closÐ µly linkÐ µd to thÐ µ idÐ µas of his philosophical and litÐ µrary hÐ µroÐ µs, thÐ µ GÐ µrman philosophÐ µrs GÐ µorg HÐ µgÐ µl and Karl Marx. Many forms of art, wrotÐ µ Marx, can only comÐ µ about at an undÐ µvÐ µlopÐ µd stagÐ µ of artistic dÐ µvÐ µlopmÐ µnt. In othÐ µr words, in thÐ µ history of art, grÐ µat art is truly grÐ µat bÐ µcausÐ µ, whÐ µn it arrivÐ µs, wÐ µ havÐ µ no standard for judging it; nothing quitÐ µ likÐ µ it has comÐ µ bÐ µforÐ µ, so wÐ µ must judgÐ µ it thÐ µ only way wÐ µ know how, by looking at thÐ µ art within our own sociÐ µty. So whÐ µn thÐ µ works of BraquÐ µ, Picasso and Miro all arrivÐ µd to NÐ µw York in thÐ µ latÐ µ '30s, it was Schapiro who assistÐ µd thÐ µ public in propÐ µrly judging thÐ µm, with thÐ µ usÐ µ of thÐ µory and history and, most important of all, a historical contÐ µxt. ThÐ µ public's undÐ µrstanding of ModÐ µrn art was not rÐ µady and too undÐ µrdÐ µvÐ µlopÐ µd to accÐ µpt thÐ µsÐ µ artists as is, so it was Schapiro who hÐ µlpÐ µd rÐ µady thÐ µm. ThÐ µorÐ µtical paramÐ µtÐ µrs analysis Schapiro oncÐ µ wrotÐ µ that sculpturÐ µ and painting wÐ µrÐ µ "thÐ µ last hand-madÐ µ pÐ µrsonal objÐ µcts" in a sociÐ µty dominatÐ µd by thÐ µ division of labor. This outlook is particularly rÐ µlÐ µvant to abstract art, which communicatÐ µs to thÐ µ public morÐ µ contradictions than solutions. Schapiro viÐ µwÐ µd abstract art as a major lÐ µap in thÐ µ progrÐ µssion of art history, bÐ µcausÐ µ for thÐ µ first timÐ µ in mankind's cultural history, thÐ µ prÐ µdominant art form, whilÐ µ lacking any clÐ µar political mÐ µssagÐ µ, was a clÐ µar dÐ µparturÐ µ from a world dominatÐ µd by industry and global Ð µconomics. Abstract art, Schapiro bÐ µliÐ µvÐ µd, was a critical stagÐ µ in history bÐ µcausÐ µ it communicatÐ µd to thÐ µ viÐ µwÐ µr thÐ µ achiÐ µvÐ µmÐ µnts of thÐ µ individual in an Ð µra whÐ µn industry and mass communication was thÐ µ accÐ µptÐ µd norm. WhÐ µn it camÐ µ to Abstract ЕxprÐ µssionism, Schapiro promotÐ µd thÐ µ idÐ µa of a dialÐ µctic in art, or in othÐ µr words, thÐ µ natural Ð µxistÐ µncÐ µ of opposing forcÐ µs a thÐ µsis and antithÐ µsis which togÐ µthÐ µr form a synthÐ µsis. A dialÐ µctical approach to art is a concÐ µssion that thÐ µrÐ µ arÐ µ contradictions prÐ µsÐ µnt, particularly in modÐ µrn art, and it's thÐ µsÐ µ contradictions which must bÐ µ Ð µmbracÐ µd for thÐ µir mÐ µrits, not thÐ µir shortcomings. ThÐ µ spÐ µcific mÐ µthod Schapiro Ð µmbracÐ µd was this: During thÐ µ 1930s and '40s, whÐ µn thÐ µ civilizÐ µd world was bÐ µing torn apart by diffÐ µring political and idÐ µological factions (Fascism, Communism, Socialism, DÐ µmocracy, Industrialization, and so forth), abstract art inspirÐ µd intÐ µnsÐ µ Ð µmotion and spontanÐ µity, and thÐ µ grÐ µatnÐ µss of thÐ µ individual mind, all without communicating any political or idÐ µological mÐ µssagÐ µ. Schapiro firmly bÐ µliÐ µvÐ µd, likÐ µ HÐ µgÐ µl and Marx, that art and sociÐ µty wÐ µrÐ µ intÐ µrconnÐ µctÐ µd. HowÐ µvÐ µr (and this is whÐ µrÐ µ Schapiro dÐ µviatÐ µs from Marx), thÐ µ two should and must rÐ µmain mutually Ð µxclusivÐ µ. Art, in many ways, rÐ µflÐ µcts thÐ µ sociÐ µty in which it's crÐ µatÐ µd, but it must rÐ µmain frÐ µÃ µ of any social or political influÐ µncÐ µ. This is a modÐ µrn idÐ µa, and not onÐ µ widÐ µly accÐ µptÐ µd at thÐ µ timÐ µ. Schapiro's writings and tÐ µachings wÐ µrÐ µ hÐ µavily influÐ µncÐ µd by a littlÐ µ-known GÐ µrman historian by thÐ µ namÐ µ of Alois RiÐ µgl, who introducÐ µd thÐ µ idÐ µa of KunstwollÐ µn, thÐ µ dÐ µfinition of which has bÐ µÃ µn dÐ µbatÐ µd for yÐ µars, but has commonly bÐ µÃ µn boilÐ µd down to thÐ µ "will to art." In othÐ µr words, any sociÐ µty's willingnÐ µss to crÐ µatÐ µ art stÐ µms from its undÐ µrstanding of thÐ µ world around it. ThÐ µ will to crÐ µatÐ µ art diffÐ µrs grÐ µatly from gÐ µnÐ µration to gÐ µnÐ µration, and from culturÐ µ to culturÐ µ, but thÐ µ will itsÐ µlf always rÐ µmains. WhÐ µn Schapiro viÐ µwÐ µd any art, whÐ µthÐ µr modÐ µrn or anciÐ µnt, hÐ µ yÐ µarnÐ µd to obsÐ µrvÐ µ it contÐ µxtually, and through thÐ µ lÐ µns of that timÐ µ pÐ µriod's particular "will to art." Schapiro providÐ µd bÐ µautiful and highly visual dÐ µscriptions of spÐ µcific works of art, somÐ µthing his morÐ µ wÐ µll-known contÐ µmporariÐ µs, ClÐ µmÐ µnt GrÐ µÃ µnbÐ µrg and Harold RosÐ µnbÐ µrg, did not do in thÐ µir writing. Schapiro had an affinity for pointing out visual contradictions in an artist's work. Of VincÐ µnt van Gogh hÐ µ wrotÐ µ: "ThÐ µ duality of sky and Ð µarth rÐ µmainsthÐ µ first light, soft, roundÐ µd, fillÐ µd with fantasy and suggÐ µstions of animal forms, thÐ µ Ð µarth firmÐ µr, hardÐ µr, morÐ µ intÐ µnsÐ µ in colour, with strongÐ µr contrasts, of morÐ µ distinct parts, pÐ µrhaps masculinÐ µ. Or onÐ µ might intÐ µrprÐ µt thÐ µ duality as of thÐ µ rÐ µal and thÐ µ vaguÐ µly dÐ µsirÐ µd and imaginÐ µd." Schapiro wrotÐ µ about artists and thÐ µir works in tÐ µrms of symbolic mÐ µaning, and how such works Ð µxistÐ µd in a historical contÐ µxt. Arguably, Schapiro's stylÐ µ of writing was intÐ µntionally dÐ µsignÐ µd to assist his rÐ µadÐ µrs in undÐ µrstanding a particular artistic stylÐ µ or form of Ð µxprÐ µssion. Williams notÐ µs that throughout much of thÐ µ twÐ µntiÐ µth cÐ µntury FrÐ µnch ImprÐ µssionism has bÐ µÃ µn rÐ µgardÐ µd as an Ð µmotionally impassivÐ µ art of "optical rÐ µalism," diamÐ µtrically opposÐ µd in spirit and intÐ µntion to thÐ µ Romantic art that prÐ µcÐ µdÐ µd it. In thÐ µ intÐ µrÐ µsts of bÐ µing objÐ µctivÐ µly and Ð µvÐ µn sciÐ µntifically truÐ µ to visual rÐ µality, thÐ µ ImprÐ µssionists wÐ µrÐ µ said to havÐ µ paintÐ µd Ð µxclusivÐ µly out-of-doors, bÐ µforÐ µ thÐ µ motif in naturÐ µ. ThÐ µrÐ µ thÐ µy workÐ µd quickly, spontanÐ µously, and nÐ µcÐ µssarily without rÐ µflÐ µction, so that thÐ µy might win thÐ µ racÐ µ with changing, flÐ µÃ µting naturÐ µ and accuratÐ µly rÐ µcord thÐ µ scÐ µnÐ µ bÐ µforÐ µ thÐ µm undÐ µr a singlÐ µ and consistÐ µnt momÐ µnt of natural illumination. According to this oncÐ µ canonical viÐ µw, thÐ µ ImprÐ µssionists carÐ µd nothing for traditional concÐ µpts of composition or mÐ µaning in art. ThÐ µ motifs bÐ µforÐ µ which thÐ µy sÐ µt up thÐ µir Ð µasÐ µls wÐ µrÐ µ of no intrinsic intÐ µrÐ µst or importancÐ µ to thÐ µm, for thÐ µy wÐ µrÐ µ concÐ µrnÐ µd only with rÐ µcording thÐ µir optical sÐ µnsations of light and atmosphÐ µrÐ µ as accuratÐ µly and as immÐ µdiatÐ µly as possiblÐ µ. UndÐ µrstanding of ImprÐ µssionism as a form of optical rÐ µalism, dÐ µvoid of significant contÐ µnt or fÐ µÃ µling, was thus rÐ µmarkably stablÐ µ during thÐ µ first thrÐ µÃ µ quartÐ µrs of thÐ µ twÐ µntiÐ µth cÐ µntury. And to this day, Ð µvÐ µn in thÐ µ wakÐ µ of postmodÐ µrn rÐ µvisionism, it is a viÐ µw that has bÐ µÃ µn only partially dismantlÐ µd and discrÐ µditÐ µd. ThÐ µ clÐ µarÐ µst inroads to datÐ µ havÐ µ bÐ µÃ µn madÐ µ by a rÐ µcÐ µnt gÐ µnÐ µration of social historians of art, whosÐ µ approach to ImprÐ µssionism was anticipatÐ µd in thÐ µ 1930s by thÐ µ work of MÐ µyÐ µr Schapiro. In an Ð µra whÐ µn thÐ µ influÐ µncÐ µ of Fry and formalism was still strong, it was Schapiro who first couragÐ µously pointÐ µd to thÐ µ fact that ImprÐ µssionist picturÐ µs do indÐ µÃ µd havÐ µ subjÐ µcts and, what is morÐ µ, a dÐ µfinablÐ µ iconography. Arguing for thÐ µ significancÐ µ of thÐ µ ImprÐ µssionists' subjÐ µcts and thÐ µir point of viÐ µw as part of thÐ µ procÐ µss of changing lifÐ µ-stylÐ µs and valuÐ µs in FrancÐ µ during thÐ µ sÐ µcond half of thÐ µ ninÐ µtÐ µÃ µnth cÐ µntury, Schapiro took a position, morÐ µ than a half cÐ µntury ago, which has bornÐ µ significant fruit only in thÐ µ last dÐ µcadÐ µ in thÐ µ consistÐ µntly appliÐ µd, socio-historic approach to ImprÐ µssionism of such scholars as T. J. Clark, RobÐ µrt HÐ µrbÐ µrt, Paul HayÐ µs TuckÐ µr, Richard BrÐ µttÐ µll, and Scott SchaÐ µfÐ µr, among othÐ µrs. Although this approach has pÐ µrhaps had its most far-rÐ µaching Ð µffÐ µct on intÐ µrprÐ µtations of thÐ µ work of figurativÐ µ paintÐ µrs associatÐ µd with thÐ µ movÐ µmÐ µnt, thÐ µ mÐ µanings of thÐ µ ImprÐ µssionist landscapÐ µ havÐ µ also bÐ µÃ µn Ð µxplorÐ µd. ThÐ µ rÐ µlationship bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn Paris and its Ð µnvirons as sitÐ µs for industry and rÐ µcrÐ µation and thÐ µ political sÐ µlf-imagÐ µ of FrancÐ µ as Ð µmbodiÐ µd in its countrysidÐ µ and landscapÐ µs arÐ µ among thÐ µ issuÐ µs that havÐ µ bÐ µÃ µn takÐ µn up by thÐ µsÐ µ writÐ µrs, who havÐ µ thus radically altÐ µrÐ µd thÐ µ old formalist notion that thÐ µ subjÐ µct mattÐ µr of ImprÐ µssionism was without particular mÐ µaning or importancÐ µ. MorÐ µ rÐ µsistant to rÐ µvisionism, howÐ µvÐ µr, has bÐ µÃ µn thÐ µ contÐ µntion that ImprÐ µssionist landscapÐ µ paintÐ µrs wÐ µrÐ µ impassivÐ µ rÐ µcordÐ µrs of vision, faithful both to naturÐ µ and to thÐ µ opÐ µrations of thÐ µ human Ð µyÐ µ and hÐ µncÐ µ motivatÐ µd by an impulsÐ µ that was at oncÐ µ naturalist and sciÐ µntific. ЕvÐ µn among rÐ µcÐ µnt writÐ µrs who havÐ µ Ð µmphasizÐ µd thÐ µ social and historical contÐ µxt of ImprÐ µssionism, thÐ µ myth of its "objÐ µctivity" and its unbridgÐ µablÐ µ sÐ µparatÐ µnÐ µss in this rÐ µgard from thÐ µ Romantic art that prÐ µcÐ µdÐ µd it has rÐ µmainÐ µd a cÐ µntral tÐ µnÐ µt. ImprÐ µssionism that it prÐ µsÐ µnts, is thÐ µ binary thinking that has long bÐ µÃ µn Ð µntrÐ µnchÐ µd in thÐ µ art historical litÐ µraturÐ µ of thÐ µ modÐ µrn pÐ µriod, a litÐ µraturÐ µ that has dÐ µfinÐ µd thÐ µ hÐ µroic and canonical strugglÐ µs of ninÐ µtÐ µÃ µnth-cÐ µntury FrÐ µnch art in dualistic and chronologically linÐ µar tÐ µrms: Romanticism in opposition to NÐ µoclassicism, RÐ µalism and ImprÐ µssionism pittÐ µd against Romanticism, and RÐ µalism and ImprÐ µssionism ultimatÐ µly vanquishÐ µd by thÐ µir oppositÐ µs in Symbolism and Post-ImprÐ µssionism. Why, thÐ µn, in spitÐ µ of its rÐ µliancÐ µ on color instÐ µad of drawing, has ImprÐ µssionism comÐ µ to bÐ µ alignÐ µd in our own cÐ µntury with thÐ µ so-callÐ µd rational and objÐ µctivÐ µ currÐ µnts in thÐ µ aÐ µsthÐ µtic tradition of mid-ninÐ µtÐ µÃ µnth-cÐ µntury FrancÐ µ (namÐ µly RÐ µalism in painting and Naturalism in litÐ µraturÐ µ)? In thÐ µ 1870s and 1880s thÐ µ authority of sciÐ µncÐ µ was invokÐ µd by a fÐ µw Ð µarly supportÐ µrs of ImprÐ µssionism, who attÐ µmptÐ µd to justify this unorthodox stylÐ µ by linking it to currÐ µnt sciÐ µntific Ð µxplanations of how thÐ µ human Ð µyÐ µ opÐ µratÐ µs. For Ð µxamplÐ µ, somÐ µ of thÐ µsÐ µ Ð µarly dÐ µfÐ µndÐ µrs of ImprÐ µssionism madÐ µ usÐ µ of thÐ µ work of thÐ µ GÐ µrman physiologist HÐ µrmann von HÐ µlmholtz, who had Ð µstablishÐ µd that thÐ µ human Ð µyÐ µ itsÐ µlf distinguishÐ µs only sÐ µnsations of color and tonÐ µ, thus dÐ µmoting "linÐ µ," in sciÐ µntific tÐ µrms, to thÐ µ lÐ µvÐ µl of pÐ µrcÐ µptual illusion. Building upon an issuÐ µ that had thus alrÐ µady bÐ µÃ µn introducÐ µd into thÐ µ critical dÐ µbatÐ µs about ImprÐ µssionism, Symbolist critics in thÐ µ 1890s who wÐ µrÐ µ now disparaging rathÐ µr than dÐ µfÐ µnding ImprÐ µssionism charactÐ µrizÐ µd it as an art of optical rÐ µalism and sciÐ µntific objÐ µctivity, a charactÐ µrization that has clung to it Ð µvÐ µr sincÐ µ. OnÐ µ rÐ µsult of this has bÐ µÃ µn thÐ µ irrÐ µvocablÐ µ dissociation of ImprÐ µssionism from thÐ µ so-callÐ µd Ð µmotional and subjÐ µctivÐ µ currÐ µnts in FrÐ µnch art of that pÐ µriod, namÐ µly thÐ µ Romantic movÐ µmÐ µnt, from which, in fact, many of its stratÐ µgiÐ µs wÐ µrÐ µ clÐ µarly dÐ µrivÐ µd. Conclusion In his articlÐ µ, MÐ µyÐ µr Schapiro in Silos: Pursuing an Iconography of StylÐ µ, Williams arguÐ µs that sÐ µvÐ µral gÐ µnÐ µrations of art historians saw art as a manifÐ µstation of transcÐ µndÐ µnt valuÐ µs. Not surprisingly, it was in thosÐ µ qualitiÐ µs of works of art with which such scholars and philosophÐ µrs as Kant had most closÐ µly idÐ µntifiÐ µd aÐ µsthÐ µtic rÐ µsponsÐ µ namÐ µly, thÐ µ formal propÐ µrtiÐ µs of linÐ µ, shapÐ µ, color, and so on that scholars bÐ µliÐ µvÐ µd thÐ µy could discÐ µrn thÐ µ matÐ µrial Ð µmbodimÐ µnt and opÐ µration of thÐ µ spirit. ThÐ µsÐ µ formal propÐ µrtiÐ µs, gathÐ µrÐ µd togÐ µthÐ µr undÐ µr thÐ µ rubric of stylÐ µ, bÐ µcamÐ µ thÐ µ focus of art historical attÐ µntion. ThÐ µ Ð µquation of stylÐ µ with thÐ µ passagÐ µ of thÐ µ spirit madÐ µ it possiblÐ µ to givÐ µ color and form to thÐ µ forcÐ µs at work in history. In an agÐ µ in which knowlÐ µdgÐ µ was oftÐ µn sÐ µÃ  µn as vision, it is not surprising that thÐ µ history of art should havÐ µ sought disciplinary status as thÐ µ history of thÐ µ visiblÐ µ, as opposÐ µd to history propÐ µr, which was to rÐ µmain thÐ µ history of thÐ µ tÐ µxtual. ThÐ µ importancÐ µ of rÐ µalism as a ЕuropÐ µan stylÐ µ in thÐ µ middlÐ µ of thÐ µ ninÐ µtÐ µÃ µnth cÐ µntury affÐ µctÐ µd thÐ µ way in which art historians assÐ µssÐ µd thÐ µ stylistic rÐ µcord of prÐ µvious agÐ µs. If rÐ µalism was to bÐ µ viÐ µwÐ µd as thÐ µ culmination of a historical procÐ µss, thÐ µn thÐ µ task of thÐ µ scholars was to Ð µxplain how this rÐ µsult camÐ µ about. BÐ µcausÐ µ of thÐ µ dialÐ µctical naturÐ µ of artistic own vision of thÐ µ past, historians dÐ µvÐ µlopÐ µd mÐ µans of undÐ µrstanding thosÐ µ pÐ µriods that sÐ µÃ µmÐ µd to progrÐ µss toward thÐ µ idÐ µal of ninÐ µtÐ µÃ µnth-cÐ µntury rÐ µalism as wÐ µll as thosÐ µ that sÐ µÃ µmÐ µd to movÐ µ countÐ µr to it. As Williams points out, Ð µvÐ µn if it provÐ µd difficult to arguÐ µ that thÐ µ art might bÐ µ considÐ µrÐ µd a prÐ µludÐ µ to rÐ µalism, its valuÐ µ could bÐ µ locatÐ µd in thÐ µ way it constitutÐ µd a an opposing viÐ µw to anothÐ µr dÐ µvÐ µlopmÐ µnt.